Re: Filtering

While we're throwing ideas around, why not try using a float texture and see 
if it produces the same error?

.ola

P.S.
 Hi Andreas :)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nathaniel Hoffman" <[email protected]>
To: "Game Development Algorithms" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Algorithms] Filtering


> Didn't the newer NVIDIA GPUs fix this?
>
>> You guessed right. The loss of precision is in the texture units.
>> Unfortunately, 8 bit components are filtered to 8 bit results (even 
>> though
>> they show up as floating point values in the shader). This is true for
>> nvidia gpus for sure and probably all other gpus.
>>
>> -mike
>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>   From: Stefan Sandberg
>>   To: Game Development Algorithms
>>   Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 1:45 AM
>>   Subject: Re: [Algorithms] Filtering
>>
>>
>>   Assuming you're after precision, what's wrong with doing it manually? 
>> :)
>>   If performance is what you're after, and you're working on textures as
>> they were intended(ie, game textures or video or something like that,
>> not 'data'), you could separate contrast & color separately, keeping
>> high contrast resolution, and downsampled color, and
>>   you'd save both bandwidth and instr.
>>   If you simply want to know 'why', I'm guessing loss of precision in the
>> tex units?
>>   You've already ruled out shader precision from your own manual
>> filtering, so doesn't leave much else, imo..
>>   Other than manipulating the data you're working on, which is the only
>> thing you -can- change I guess, I cant really see a solution,
>>   but far greater minds linger here than mine, so hold on for what I
>> assume will be a lengthy description of floating point math as
>>   it is implemented in modern gpu's :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Andreas Brinck
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     I have a texture in which I use the R, G and B channel to store a
>>     value in the [0, 1] range with very high precision. The value is
>>     extracted like this in the (Cg) shader:
>>
>>     float
>>     extractValue(float2 pos) {
>>        float4 temp = tex2D(buffer, pos);
>>        return (temp.x * 16711680.0 + temp.y * 65280.0 + temp.z * 255.0) *
>>     (1.0 / 16777215.0);
>>     }
>>
>>     I now want to sample this value with bilinear filtering but when I do
>>     this I don't get a correct result. If I do the filtering manually 
>> like
>>     this:
>>
>>     float
>>     sampleValue(float2 pos) {
>>            float2 ipos = floor(pos);
>>            float2 fracs = pos - ipos;
>>            float d0 = extractValue(ipos);
>>            float d1 = extractValue(ipos + float2(1, 0));
>>            float d2 = extractValue(ipos + float2(0, 1));
>>            float d3 = extractValue(ipos + float2(1, 1));
>>            return lerp(lerp(d0, d1, fracs.x), lerp(d2, d3, fracs.x),
>> fracs.y);
>>     }
>>
>>     everything works as expected. The values in the buffer can be seen as
>>     a linear combination of three constants:
>>
>>     value = (C0 * r + C1 * g + C2 * b)
>>
>>     If we use the built in texture filtering we should get the following
>>     if we sample somewhere between two texels: {r0, g0, b0} and {r1, g1,
>>     b1}. For simplicity we just look at filtering along one axis:
>>
>>     filtered value = lerp(r0, r1, t) * C0 + lerp(g0, g1, t) * C1 +
>>     lerp(b0, b1, t) * C2;
>>
>>     Doing the filtering manually:
>>
>>     filtered value = lerp(r0 * C0 + b0 * C1 + g0 * C2, r1 * C0 + g1 * C1 
>> +
>>     b1 * C2, t)  =
>>                       = (r0 * C0 + b0 * C1 + g0 * C2) * (1 - t) + (r1 *
>>     C0 + g1 * C1 + b1 * C2) * t =
>>                       = (r0 * C0) * (1 - t) + (r1 * C0) * t + ... =
>>                       = lerp(r0, r1, t) * C0 + ...
>>
>>     So in the world of non floating point numbers these two should be
>>     equivalent right?
>>
>>     My theory is that the error is caused by an unfortunate order of
>>     floating point operations. I've tried variations like:
>>
>>     (temp.x * (16711680.0 / 16777215.0) + temp.y * (65280.0/16777215.0) +
>>     temp.z * (255.0/16777215.0))
>>
>>     and
>>
>>     (((temp.x * 256.0 + temp.y) * 256.0 + temp.z) * 255.0) * (1.0 /
>> 16777215.0)
>>
>>     but all exhibit the same problem. What do you think; is it possible 
>> to
>>     solve this problem?
>>
>>     Regards Andreas
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
>>     and start using them to simplify application deployment and
>>     accelerate your shift to cloud computing.
>>     http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
>>     [email protected]
>>     https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
>>     Archives:
>> 
>> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=gdalgorithms-list
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>   Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
>>   and start using them to simplify application deployment and
>>   accelerate your shift to cloud computing.
>>   http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>   _______________________________________________
>>   GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
>>   [email protected]
>>   https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
>>   Archives:
>> 
>> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=gdalgorithms-list------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
>> and start using them to simplify application deployment and
>> accelerate your shift to cloud computing.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev_______________________________________________
>> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
>> Archives:
>> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=gdalgorithms-list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
> and start using them to simplify application deployment and
> accelerate your shift to cloud computing.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> Archives:
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=gdalgorithms-list 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
and start using them to simplify application deployment and
accelerate your shift to cloud computing.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev
_______________________________________________
GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
Archives:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=gdalgorithms-list